*Membership spots not really limited!

Hopscotch

fahd wrote:Breaking them down on paper? So a face would be broken into many circles and other basic geometric shapes?

Yup. Many tutorials on figure drawing tell you to start drawing a head by drawing an egg shape. And tutorials on cartooning further suggest other shapes, like a square, to start with.

Regardless of whether this is what Emma meant and of whether everything can be broken down into basic geometric shapes, I'm not so sure how breaking something down into geometric shapes would actually help someone see an object to be able to draw it. If there is a complicated object in front of me and I want to draw it, and then I decide to divide it into basic geometric shapes, wouldn't I need to be able to CLEARLY see the object to be able to ACCURATELY divide it into shapes? Don't you think that no matter how much I divide an object, I need to know things like its limits first (which apparently isn't learned by dividing the object)?It'd be a pretty unneccesary process, I think, if the person doing it can already see the object clearly. Why wouldn't that person just draw the object directly? Unless the person can't see the object clearly in the first place, in which case, I doubt he or she will be able to accurately divide that object into geometric shapes--and what's the use of dividing an object into many geometric shapes if I don't know what that object actually looks like and where to divide that object?

I think you're overthinking the whole thing.

Like, let's say we have a big rectangle; this rectangle is drawn on a bigger white board. Now, I want to copy this rectangle on paper. I can divide that rectangle into basic geometric shapes, but it wouldn't be enough, because I would need to know what that rectangle looks like to be able to do so, right? I mean, I would need to know where one line starts and where it ends and things like this. What do you think?

The rectangle already is a basic geometric shape...

This is why I think that only practicing geometric shapes isn't enough to be able to draw things, at least, assuming it can be a useful tool.I think I'll try it myself just to be sure.

By all means.

Maybe this would be useful some other way? Maybe you meant it would help someone draw from memory? I think it might do that.Oh, but I think learning geometric shapes might be useful for posing figures! I mean, it'd help people make quick sketches of poses they're thinking about without going into details.

It's useful for that, too.

Another thing is that it might be the case that geometric shapes are not enough and the artist would need to know other shapes in mind. But I dunno.

Ultimately, you can draw without having to use basic shapes first. But they can help you get started.

Hopscotch

fahd wrote:Breaking them down on paper? So a face would be broken into many circles and other basic geometric shapes?

Yup. Many tutorials on figure drawing tell you to start drawing a head by drawing an egg shape. And tutorials on cartooning further suggest other shapes, like a square, to start with.

Regardless of whether this is what Emma meant and of whether everything can be broken down into basic geometric shapes, I'm not so sure how breaking something down into geometric shapes would actually help someone see an object to be able to draw it. If there is a complicated object in front of me and I want to draw it, and then I decide to divide it into basic geometric shapes, wouldn't I need to be able to CLEARLY see the object to be able to ACCURATELY divide it into shapes? Don't you think that no matter how much I divide an object, I need to know things like its limits first (which apparently isn't learned by dividing the object)?It'd be a pretty unneccesary process, I think, if the person doing it can already see the object clearly. Why wouldn't that person just draw the object directly? Unless the person can't see the object clearly in the first place, in which case, I doubt he or she will be able to accurately divide that object into geometric shapes--and what's the use of dividing an object into many geometric shapes if I don't know what that object actually looks like and where to divide that object?

I think you're overthinking the whole thing.

Like, let's say we have a big rectangle; this rectangle is drawn on a bigger white board. Now, I want to copy this rectangle on paper. I can divide that rectangle into basic geometric shapes, but it wouldn't be enough, because I would need to know what that rectangle looks like to be able to do so, right? I mean, I would need to know where one line starts and where it ends and things like this. What do you think?

The rectangle already is a basic geometric shape...

This is why I think that only practicing geometric shapes isn't enough to be able to draw things, at least, assuming it can be a useful tool.I think I'll try it myself just to be sure.

By all means.

Maybe this would be useful some other way? Maybe you meant it would help someone draw from memory? I think it might do that.Oh, but I think learning geometric shapes might be useful for posing figures! I mean, it'd help people make quick sketches of poses they're thinking about without going into details.

It's useful for that, too.

Another thing is that it might be the case that geometric shapes are not enough and the artist would need to know other shapes in mind. But I dunno.

Ultimately, you can draw without having to use basic shapes first. But they can help you get started.

rubber spoon

But do you think all that I am saying there is wrong because I am "overthinking," Herald?

The rectangle already is a basic geometric shape...

So? Rectangles drawn aren't so easy to be illustrated. But you can replace "rectangle drawn on whiteboard" with "face" if you want.

Can't you divide a rectangle into many rectangles or into two or more triangles if you want? I mean, not all rectangles look completely alike, and I don't think it'd be such an easy thing to accurately illustrate any rectangle drawn on a whiteboard. Think of big rectangles that wouldn't be laying on their lengths or widths, but would be a little rotated around their center, for example. By what you're suggesting, rectangles on the wall would be easier to draw if we divide them using rectangles and triangles. What I am thinking is that dividing the rectangle wouldn't be of much use if you can't clearly see what you are dividing, and that to accurately divide the rectangle, you actually have to see it and its particular features clearly first. I may be wrong though.

Oh, and apparently basic geometric shapes like a circle wouldn't be much easier to draw if we divide them into other geometric shapes. Which is weird.

By all means.

I have some free time so I will try it later hopefully. But I think I'd just be better off directly drawing it.

It's useful for that, too.

Yeah, using cylinders or rectangles for arms and legs, etc..

Ultimately, you can draw without having to use basic shapes first. But they can help you get started.

rubber spoon

But do you think all that I am saying there is wrong because I am "overthinking," Herald?

The rectangle already is a basic geometric shape...

So? Rectangles drawn aren't so easy to be illustrated. But you can replace "rectangle drawn on whiteboard" with "face" if you want.

Can't you divide a rectangle into many rectangles or into two or more triangles if you want? I mean, not all rectangles look completely alike, and I don't think it'd be such an easy thing to accurately illustrate any rectangle drawn on a whiteboard. Think of big rectangles that wouldn't be laying on their lengths or widths, but would be a little rotated around their center, for example. By what you're suggesting, rectangles on the wall would be easier to draw if we divide them using rectangles and triangles. What I am thinking is that dividing the rectangle wouldn't be of much use if you can't clearly see what you are dividing, and that to accurately divide the rectangle, you actually have to see it and its particular features clearly first. I may be wrong though.

Oh, and apparently basic geometric shapes like a circle wouldn't be much easier to draw if we divide them into other geometric shapes. Which is weird.

By all means.

I have some free time so I will try it later hopefully. But I think I'd just be better off directly drawing it.

It's useful for that, too.

Yeah, using cylinders or rectangles for arms and legs, etc..

Ultimately, you can draw without having to use basic shapes first. But they can help you get started.

Son of Stein

Zenguru wrote:Burne Hogarth's anatomy books are recommended by artists in the industry. Stan Lee & John Buscema's How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. Look at some of the collections of older strips by people like Al Capp and Milton Caniff.

Second/thirded/fourthed these.

Practice is the key, or like me find a couple pals that also like to draw just for the hell of it, do a 'challenge' type book together. You draw an opening page of a story and the next guy has to do page 2 who then gives it to another guy for page 3 who then gives it back to you.

I did this when I was first learning and the amount of stuff I learned collectively from that group was worth volumes.

Son of Stein

Zenguru wrote:Burne Hogarth's anatomy books are recommended by artists in the industry. Stan Lee & John Buscema's How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. Look at some of the collections of older strips by people like Al Capp and Milton Caniff.

Second/thirded/fourthed these.

Practice is the key, or like me find a couple pals that also like to draw just for the hell of it, do a 'challenge' type book together. You draw an opening page of a story and the next guy has to do page 2 who then gives it to another guy for page 3 who then gives it back to you.

I did this when I was first learning and the amount of stuff I learned collectively from that group was worth volumes.